Second off, that Darwin quote is so horrendously taken out of context and distorted by evolution deniers that it really borders on irony.

Darwin was actually talking about something I've said before on this site. That you can't trust your gut instincts when it comes to complex science because "common sense" often ends up being wrong. For example both relativity and quantum mechanics completely fly in the face of common sense, they seem utterly absurd, yet if they weren't both true the GPS in your truck wouldn't work.

Here's the quote the evolution deniers give from "on the origin of species":
"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. "

Ah hah! they say! even Darwin knew he was wrong... silly science tricks are for kids!

but what the evolution deniers will never tell you is what he said in the following two sentences:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

ouch! the irony, it burns! In the Darwin quote that the ID-ers cite to support their position he actually completely disassembles their entire argument.

Greatwhitebuffalo-

fyi, Evolution is anything but a "random" process. Scientists never said that it was.

Mutations happen at random, but then natural selection selects only the mutations which are beneficial to the species. Quite contrary to being random, evolution very specifically selects the traits which are most beneficial to the species.

Calling it "random" is a trick used by evolution deniers to fool people. Its also a straw man argument because no scientist ever said it WAS random.

WA mtnhunter,

Funny I don't remember forcing you to read this thread?

The title pretty clearly states what we're talking about and if you're not interested, don't read it.

It is the "backlash and blowback" section after all.

bighunter-

First off, I love how you say to "get a different site" and then jump right into the conversation.

but lets take a look at the flaws in your line your reasoning.

"evolution shouldnt even be suggested in my thought of mind because you have no standing point on how the first cell was created"

Scientific theories only describe those phenomena which they are intended to describe. This seems self evident, but apparently I actually have to point it out. Evolution is a theory intended to describe the diversity of life, not its origin. Darwin himself spelled this out in "On The Origin of Species" and even today the groups of scientists investigating the two questions are distinct, separate groups.

Saying "Evolution does not explain the origin of life and is therefore invalid" is the logical equivalent of saying "the theory of gravity does not explain why my coffee mug is red and is therefore invalid".

Also, this argument is a great example of the logical fallacy called the argument ad ignorentum. This fallacy goes something like "Science cannot currently explain x, therefore x was caused by some supernatural force." Not only is it a fallacy, but its a particularly weak argument for the existence of the supernatural because it depends on scientific knowledge NOT advancing... and if there is one thing that science does relentlessly, its advance.

Finally, you said:
"(these numbers were not made up)there is only a 1/10 to the 130th power chance that the universe evolved on its own."

On the contrary my dear friend, those numbers are entirely "made up". every single such analysis I have seen has been based on ridiculously bogus assumptions. Cite your source and I will spell out the faulty assumptions for you.

"Plus, evolution is very contradictory to science. Ex. 'matter can not be created or destroyed'..."

Where do I even start on this one? first off, science dosen't say that. Every operating nuclear power plant in the world is destroying matter and billions of cosmic rays are hitting the upper atmosphere and creating matter as I type this. Second off, see explanation to bighunter about scientific theories only being intended to explain those phenomena which they were meant to explain.

"Planets would not have convienently landed perfectly into orbit"

Orbits MUST happen whenever you have two bodies whose relative velocity is less than the escape velocity of the system. Its not only convenient, its a necessity.

"If the earth was a few inches out of its orbit in either directions, it could not substain life."

This is entirely false. The earth could change it orbital radius by a significant percentage and still maintain life. The climate would be very different but life would endure without much trouble. This idea of "inches" is patently absurd, the earth's orbital radius has changed MUCH more than that since life began. This is because tidal effects convert kinetic energy into heat energy thus slowing down the earth and shortening the orbital radius.

"And you think the earth just miracously landed in a perfect position?"

this is another interesting fallacy called the "lottery fallacy" the classic example is that someone wins the lottery and says "the chances of me winning were one in a million, its a miracle, God must have wanted me to win" the flaw in that persons thinking is that they are failing to consider the other million people who bought a ticket but did not win the lottery. When you consider that winning is a one in million chance, but a million people played, not only is someone winning NOT miraculous, its downright probable.

In case you're not seeing the analogy, in this case you are the lottery winner, winning the lottery is having the earth be in the "goldielocks zone" where life can exist, and the millions of other lottery players are the trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe.

"they should have looked in the bible and seen were it said 'the whole earth round."

First off, if you are using this to argue that the holy scriptures are an infallible source of objective, repeatable scientific evidence, its an awful thin argument. But I'll bite, where's the passage that says the earth is round? and cite some examples of clergy using this passage to set the misguided masses strait?

ableskeever-

Glad to see you joined the conversation without reading everything above!

"it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation/intelligent design"

absolutely not true. Science is supported by objective repeatable evidence and it makes predictions about the natural world that can then either be proven or falsified by experiment. Faith is believing without evidence and science by its very definition requires none of it.

"The odds of evolution are the same for a printer to explode and create a library"

Again, this is simply not true. You're arguing against an imaginary straw man. Not a single scientist in the whole world thinks evolution works that way. Kids are not being taught this. See the house building analogy I gave bamaoutdoorsmen above for a much better analogy of how scientists say evolution works.

"As our knowledge increases in science, the complexities and the way everything works together point more and more to intelligent design"

This is a complete non sequitur the logic you are employing is as follows: "if x is complex, then x is designed". It doesn't work that way. The pattern of mud splashes on my truck are very complex, they were not designed. If I accidentally drop a pack of cards on the floor, they will form a complex mathematical pattern that was not designed, The house in the example I gave bamaoutdoorsment would be extremely complex, but not designed, I could go on...

"So far, evolution is still a theory and is being taught as fact."

Exactly, Evolution is a theory! The trouble is scientists use the word theory very differently from its every day usage. Evolution deniers think they are insulting evolution by saying this but they are actually complimenting it. In science, theories hold more weight than facts. Facts are just observations, or statements of the result of an experiment, they don't explain anything and therefore have no predictive value. Theories, as scientists use the term, are explanations of natural phenomena that make predictions. Those predictions can then be subjected to experiments to either be confirmed of falsified. After an explanation has been subjected to many thousands of experiments and has never been falsified (i.e. only if its batting 1000) then and only then does it get to claim the title "theory". So by calling evolution a theory you are actually acknowledging its validity and strength.

In every day usage people use the term theory to describe any old idea they've cooked up. In science, this is called a hypothesis.

"If the schools are going to be teaching one point of view, then they should at least show the other"

I take it we're talking about science class? If we are, then I completely agree. If there are two competing scientific ideas, students should be taught both of them. Dark matter, punctuated equilibrium, and the K-T extinction are all great examples of this. The thing is, when it comes to explaining the diversity of life on earth there's only one game in the scientific town. That's evolution by natural selection.

I know what you're thinking, "Nuh uh!!, there's ID and creationism!" The trouble is that they're simply not science, they could be true, but it doesn't matter because they're either philosophy or theology, not science. If you want to teach them in a theology or philosophy classroom, go right ahead, be my guest.

Science makes predictions about the natural world that can then either be confirmed or falsified by experiment. ID and creationism do not do this. They are unfalsifiable, because no matter what experiment you ran, or no matter what observation you made, the answer would always be "God made it that way." It is literally impossible to formulate an experiment that could falsify them. Hands down, this means they're not science.

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

-Judge John E. Jones III, conservative, churchgoing, republican judge, appointed by G.W. Bush on page 43 of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.

FYI,

That's another logical fallacy called the argument ad hominem.

Its when you can't refute a person's position using logic or evidence so you resort to insulting the person in a fruitless attempt to invalidate their argument.

Liberal politicians are great at it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

bighunter,

When you say "the world" do you mean the universe, the planet earth, or life on earth?

and just to be clear, I'm willing to discuss these side points as long as we're in agreement that they have no bearing on evolution, since it was never meant to address this topic.

rabbitpolice is a hypocrite of the worst kind.

In this thread:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/backlash-and-blowback/are-we-christ...

and again above, rabbitpolice has pretended to be some kind of holier-than-thou super-christian who has the ability to judge his fellow men determine if they a "Christian enough."

While pretending to be the image of a perfect christian he is bearing false witness and making up hateful lies out of full cloth.

I seem to remember something about "judge not least ye be judged"...?

Respond to my challenges on the other thread, supply quotes from me to support your accusations above (you can click on my username and see every post I ever posted) Otherwise, apologize for making up hateful lies while pretending to be a "better Christian" than everyone else.

If, and only if you do that will I consider engaging with you in a conversation.

and like I said on the other post, you might want to talk to your pastor about the 9th commandment (or the 8th if you're catholic)

First and foremost, I strongly suggest you talk to one of those pastors you claim I hate so much and ask them what they think about you having the authority to declare whether or not someone is a "real Christian".

You are blatantly making up hateful lies and I've never seen anyone argue that "real Christians" behave in that way.

Produce the quotes where I say these things or apologize for telling lies about me.

I can easily answer all of your questions but I refuse to do so until you apologize for your lies or produce one of these quotes.

bighunter,

"christians never say. christians dont lie"

This is true, but that doesn't mean that anyone thinks lying is OK. Its one of the 10 commandments for crying out loud, that's a pretty big deal. rabbitpolice knows that making up hateful lies like he did was wrong. He knows that's not how Jesus would have handled the situation. He also knows that judging people is wrong, Jesus had a lot to say about judging people in the scriptures, and none of it was good. Hopefully, he will talk to his dad about these things and do the right thing by admitting that he lied and apologizing.

"you could be a evolutionist and a christian"

You don't have to tell me this. I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but I strongly adhere to the scientific method and I am christian.

"god created the universe and then just made everything evolve slowly over billions of years so.......... evolution does not actually contradict a supernatural being that created the universe"

exactly!, you're friends here seem to think that in order to think rationally and follow the scientific method you need to be an atheist. That's total BS and I'm glad to see a young chap like yourself has realized that.

Bamaoutdoorsmen-

Thank you for apologizing, I could have been a little more gentle with my comments as well.

"My arguement is based on what i have been told by atheists"

What do atheists have to do with anything? we're talking about science here. I'm not an atheist and I'm talking about the scientific stance, not atheism. Secondly, if any atheist actually said those things about explosives and houses and what not they were either very poorly educated, very immature, or both.

"If your walking in the woods and see a house, do you assume somebody built it or that a mixture of chemicals and gases caused an explosion, leading to the expolosion of trees perfectlt forming to boards and dressers, the people inside were created by a sudden change in a bacterias growth rate leading to a change in form"

This is both a straw man argument, and a repeat of the non sequitur you made before, you are essentially saying "X is complex, therefore X is designed" again.

really?

how can anyone not want to know how the world around them works?

this stuff is fascinating, don't you want to know why the bucks go into rut?

why do largemouths cling to cover on some days and swim in open water on other days?

Don't you want to know why some guns can drive nails at 200yds and others can't even hit the target at that range?

all this stuff is science, its fun, and its awesome.

ableskeever-

"Why aren't animals as neurologically evolved as humans?"

Our distant ancestors were no more neurologically advanced that other animals. The process went like this:

-At some point (a couple million years ago) some of our ancestors had a mutation that caused them to be just a little tiny bit smarter than the rest of their species.

-The individuals who had that gene for being a little tiny bit smarter were more successful than the others. This means they lived longer and had more offspring than the individuals with out that gene.

-Eventually the whole population has that gene for being just a little tiny bit smarter. Then, another mutation pops up that makes some of them just a little bit smarter than that, and the whole process repeats itself over and over again over millions of years and you end up with rather smart species.

-The catch to wrapping your mind around this process is to try and grasp how long millions of years is. Remember, the entire history of human civilization has only taken one half of one percent of a million years. Jesus lived only about two tenths of one percent of a million years ago. Yet our branch of the family tree probably split off from our unintelligent cousins something like 50 million years ago. Even teeny tiny, slow changes end up being a big deal on those time scales.

why didn't, say, snails go through this process and end up just as smart? There's a couple of reasons.

First, their environment really doesn't provide any selective pressure for intelligence. They don't need to solve complex problems or interact socially like our ancestors did, so even if a "smart" gene did pop up, those individuals wouldn't necessarily have more offspring.

Second, It could be as simple as that they haven't had the right set of mutations pop up over time to produce a complex nervous system.

"Carbon dating has come up false on many occasions "

This is absolute and total nonsense that you (and about half the country) have been fed by dishonest evolution deniers. To explain why, we need to get into some some physics, so bear with me...

Certain types of elements are too heavy for there charge and this makes them unstable. Since they are unstable, they give off radiation which allows them to transform into another, more stable element. They follow a perfect exponential decay curve that you can predict with calculations and then reproduce in the lab, and the calculations match the results perfectly. The curve tells you how much of the old, unstable element will be left after a certain period of time, versus how much of the new, stable element there will be.

Depending on how unstable the element is, the half life of these curves (time to drop to 50% of the original level)can range from a couple of seconds, to a couple million years.

We can use this decay to date things. Chemistry can tell us the original concentrations of the two elements based on what kind of rock or substance we're dealing with. Then, we can take an object and measure how much of the old unstable element is there versus how much of the new stable element there is. You can then plug that ratio into that nice, clean decay curve we were talking about earlier and figure out how long its been since that substance was formed.

Its pretty cool, and its just one of the dozens of way we know that the earth is 750000 times older than the bible says it is.

So what the evolution deniers talking about?
one of three things:

1) "radioactive dating says the mt. Saint Hellens lava dome is millions of years old, but its only 29 years old!"
This was total BS, it was done by creationists who knew ahead of time that they were using the wrong technique for rock that young. They used an element that has a half life of many millions of years. Obviously, not enough of the old unstable had decayed into the new stable element to be detectable. So they dropped the sample into the dating machine, it gave them an error that there was not enough of the new element to get a meaningful date. They over-rode the error and went screaming to the press with the "millions of years" number that they knew was BS. The whole thing was a shame and rather despicable for people who claims to be religious.

2) "The dates from different elements don't agree!"
This has a kernel of truth, but is very misleading. We don't have the ability to measure the amounts of each measurement down to the molecule. This means we can't say 100% exactly where we are on the curve. So, when you date a dinosaur bone say, you don't an an answer like "exactly 65 million years", you get an answer like "65 million years, plus or minus 2 million years." Some elements date the earth at something like "4.56234 billion plus or minus .0034 billion years" for one element and "4.56302 billion plus or minus .0057 billion years." The ranges given all overlap for crying out loud! they all agree! And to make things worse, all of difference in error can be explain by our inability to exactly measure the elements. There logic literally goes like this "one element says the earth is 4.562 billion years old, another says its 4.563 billion years old, therefore it must be 6000 years old" come on! give me a Break!

3) "the curves of the various elements can change!"
This one is total BS, first off, the measured curves all exactly match the mathematical predictions. Second off, they've actually tried to change the curves in a lab and couldn't do it. Third off, if they were all changing why would they always match the predictions (which don't change over time) and all change in exactly such a way that they all point to the earth being 4.56 billion years old?

bighunter-

Great! I hope I have convinced you not to use the god of the gaps argument any more.

The first thing we can say about the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of god is that neither are science because they can't be subjected to a test that could falsify them.

That means we're in the realm of theology/philosophy, and that realm is a little too squishy for my liking. But what the heck, I'll throw my two cents in.

teleological argument-
My understanding of it: "some things are too complex to have happened naturally, therefore something supernatural caused them, That supernatural something is God, therefore God exists"

my opinion: This whole argument takes as its premise that some things are too complex to have emerged naturally. The whole argument collapses if that is not true. I think people who assert this are massively underestimating nature. Its really a logical fallacy called the "argument from personal incredulity" which basically says "I, personally cannot imagine a way that X can occur, therefore X could not have occurred." You can pretty easily see how this argument is bogus.

plus, lets look at people who have argued "X is too complex to have happened naturally" in the past. For "X" they have used lightning, the movements of the planets, electricity, gravity, etc... how did these people turn out? They got egg on their face, just like the "God of the gaps" people. This is because they were betting on scientific knowledge not advancing, and that's a loosing bet.

cosmological argument-
My understanding of it: "every effect has a cause, this creates an infinitely long chain of effects and causes, an infinitely long chain is not possible, therefore there must be an ultimate cause that set off the chain, that ultimate cause is God"

my opinion: This whole argument hangs on the premise that an infinitely long chain of causes and effects is not possible. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Math seems to describe the universe pretty well and math certianly no problem with the concept of infinity, as an engineer, I use it all the time.

You also have the possibility that the universe is not an infinitely long chain of causes, but instead is a loop of causes. That would satisfy the requirement of every effect needing a cause without requiring an "ultimate cause." That concept might be weird but that's exactly how three dimensional space works, its finite in size but has no clear edge. If you went far enough to the left of the milky way, you'd end up on the right of the milky way. Another analogy is the surface area of a beach ball. The surface area of a beach ball is a finite value, but the surface has no clear edge or end.

The cosmological argument is a lot better than the lame-o teleological argument, but its by no means bulletproof.

Bella-

I know, don't you love the irony of someone using a computer and the internet to trash on science?

Do you have to deal with any anti-science nonsense within your faith?

"Whats the point in figuring it all out?"

seriously? seriously? did you seriously just ask that? are you seriously suggesting that whenever we run up against something we don't understand, we should just say "God did it" and leave it at that? seriously?

Do you know where we'd if everyone thought like that? the stone age! I'm not even exaggerating, we might not even be there because we wouldn't have figured out the whole "fire" thing!

If people just said "God makes birds fly" and didn't try to figure out how they fly, we wouldn't have airplanes.

If Ben Franklin had just said "God makes lightning" and didn't try to figure out how it worked, we wouldn't have electricity. That also means no trucks, computers, tv's, microwaves, or anything else with electronics.

If Maxwell had just said "God makes magnetism" and didn't try to figure out how it worked, we wouldn't have any kind of cell phones, radios, wireless internet, satellites, lasers, CD's, DVD's, or anything else that uses radio waves.

If Currie had just said "God made those rocks weird" and didn't try to explain radioactivity then we wouldn't have nuclear power plants, x- rays, cat scans, pet scans, and smoke detectors.

If doctors had just said "God makes people sick" and didn't try to figure out how or why they were sick then our children would still be dieing of polio, mumps, measles, small pox, cholera, whooping cough and hepatitis. The average life span would still be 35 years!

don't think evolution has anything to do with this? Guess again, evolution is the basis of all modern biology. Every vaccine you have ever taken was designed by evolutionary biologists. Most modern pharmaceuticals are designed by evolutionary biologists. Almost all commercially grown food crops have had evolutionary biologists involved in their development.

Modern society is built on the concept of "figuring it out" it blows my mind that members of the most advanced society ever can stand on the shoulders of giants, enjoy long life, disease free childhoods, cheap and safe food, and fluffy technology like computers and the internet, then look down and spit in the eye of those scientific giants whose shoulders were standing on.

I'm dumbfounded...

bella-

Don't forget, after he shoots all his technology with his shot gun he'll have to melt it down. That gun powder comes from chemistry and mechanical engineers used science to test and design the gun itself!

Also, he'll have to stop buying food (you know, grown using tractors, pesticides, and all that jazz)

and he'll have to force all of his loved ones to stop taking modern medical treatment of any kind... hope he's not too close to anyone who is too young or too old.

ok, lets assume he's gone and answer his questions in case any of you guys wanted to know how he was wrong. The only thing he asked that hasn't been addressed yet is this:

"Where are all the missing links that should cover the earth if evolution is true?"

I'm not even exaggerating when I say that scientists call this line "the creationist's favorite lie"

So, when he says "missing links" he is talking about what scientists call "transitional forms". Essentially, an animal in transition from one "form" to another.

If you want to get technical, every single living thing alive today and single fossil ever found is a transitional form from what it used to be to what to it will be in the future. (Homo sapiens for example, is a transitional form from Homo rhodesiensis to some unknown future species.) So then why does rabbitpolice say transitional forms don't exist? That's why its called the creationist's favorite lie.

That being said, this does not necessarily mean that the term "transitional form" is meaningless. It is usually applied to mean a species at one of the major branch points of the tree of life. For example, the point where vertebrates split from invertebrates, the point where land animals split off from fish, the point where the ancestors of whales first took back to the water, etc...

We have TONS of examples of these, if you head to your local natural history museum you can pry see a couple. Here's a short list of just a few examples of series of transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I am not going to address the folks above who apparently have placed themselves in the role "thought police" and decided that I must justify my posts to them before I can make them. I thought we lived in a free country, not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?

I am going to address people like RJ and any other rational thinkers still reading this thread. Notice the difference in the discussion between myself and the evolution deniers.

When they present a claim (earth is 6000yrs old, no transitional fossils, ID is science, etc...) Notice what I do, I rationally and logically lay out why their claim is wrong. In other words, I present a rational argument.

When I present a claim, What do they do? Do they attempt to rationally and logically refute my claim? Nope, not once. They do one of two things, they either pretend it didn't happen and jump to an entirely new topic, or they switch to an ad hominem attack by making up lies to insult me like:

-I have a "a loathing for Christians and pastors"
(when in reality I AM a Christian and I am quite good friends with my pastor)

-I Give myself "+1's"
(when I don't and there's no way for him to even know even if I did)

-I'm a cultist
(When I had clearly stated that I was a Christian several times by that point so either he hasn't read the very posts he's talking about or he's blatantly lying)

-I'm an atheist
(see above)

-I am "unwilling to evaluate evidence"
(when in reality I've discussed evidence 10 times more than anyone else on the thread, again either not reading or blatantly lying)

-childish playground insults like I have a "little head" and don't have a job and get picked on at work.
(think about it, even if those things were true there's no way for them to know, they're blatantly lying)

etc...

So friends, which side of an argument do you think you should trust?

The side that rationally and logically supports their arguments while refuting their opponents claims?

Or the side that ignores evidence presented to them, haplessly jumps from one claim to another, and then when they can't refute their opponents claim, they resort to making up hateful lies and ad hominem arguments in a vein attempt to discredit him?

"you are just trying to get people to believer you because your a good thinker."

I would like to officially nominate that for the funniest sentence ever.

...and I rest my case.

ah hah! finally some claims other than ad hominems, lets take a look at them shall we?

I'll take a look at each of your claims and then point some things out.

claim 1:
**The wikipedia page ken linked to only has pictures of 4 hominid skulls, therefore 4 hominid skulls comprise all the evidence for human evolution, therefore human evolution is bunk.**

Sorry about that, I did not provide that link as evidence for human evolution, I provided it to refute the claim that there are no transitional fossils.

here are pictures of 30 hominid fossils along with descriptions of many more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

here's another site from Michigan State University listing 430 hominid fossils, this site doesn't have as many pictures but it does cite all the published scientific papers that describe the fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

So, if you think one of the country's leading universities is defrauding us you can always look up the papers and prove them wrong.

(fyi, those are the top two links that come up if you had bothered to punch "hominid fossils" into google)

Claim 2:
**Anyone can edit wikipedia, therefore nothing on wikipedia can be trusted**

It is always true that you should be skeptical of your sources, check for references and independent corroboration. Wikipedia is much more helpful in this regard than other websites because you can usually, but not always, scroll down to the bottom of the page and find direct links to the page's citation.

If you care to back up your claim and call into question any particular factual claim on that wikipedia page, make your claim and I will gladly do the 10 seconds of google-ing to find a corroborating source.

sorry, forgot to clarify those last two posts were for ableskeever.

Whittailhunter-

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Could you cite some sources or give some examples?

"I said that your reference you posted earlier was pretty weak."

How is it weak at all? The claim was "there are no transitional fossils". To refute the claim, I provided a list of 60 such fossils. This seems a rather strong line of evidence to me.

It may have been a weak example of hominid evolution, but that was not the claim I was refuting. To refute that claim, I gave the links above.

"I was asking if wikipedia can be trusted or not."

Isn't that the issue I addressed? plus, this kind of reeks of the "I'm just asking questions" defense. Like when a liberal says something like: "I'm not saying George Bush is a Nazi, I'm just asking questions"

"I know that they can make inferences into muscle structures from bone density and shape, but you can only take it so far"

No one ever claimed the amount of information that could be gleaned was limitless. The paleontologists are extremely good at this, and the peer review process keeps everyone honest 99.99% of the time.

"what would a palentologist make of a skull that belonged to a tribe that practices head-binding?"

Where are you going with this argument? Evidence of evolution has thousands of lines of evidence independent of hominid fossils. If your claim is that we don't know everything, I concede the point. This does not however mean that we don't know anything. If you have an alternate testable hypothesis that could be falsified, offer it up and subject it to testing and observation. We can see which hypothesis holds up better. That's how science works.

"This came from a specific example of Peking Man."

I think you are working off some old information. According to that first link I gave you, Peking Man is currently known by:14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, and some skeletal bones.

one example:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/skull.jpg

"I'm saying that with the possiblity of money coming in, there can be an incentive to become biased and look for something that isn't really there."

and my point is that this is exceedingly rare. Also, the whole "money" thing is a red herring, its impossible to do anything without money in a capitalist economy. Peer review keeps this from happening in all but a few cases (most of those happen when peer review is bypassed and people go strait to the press)

whitetailhunter-

"I do not know any exact sources or sites... but im sure since your some kind of "Genuis" then you could look up a site that is "scientificly accurate" on Charles Darwin and find the information that i posted above is true."

I actually did some google-ing and couldn't turn anything up, even on the big creationist sites. That's why I asked. That being said, does it really make sense to claim that if one thing someone says is wrong then everything they have ever said is wrong?

"Im sorry that im not some evolution guru"

No need to be sorry, but you are the one making claims here. If you're claiming to be authoritative on a subject, shouldn't you be able to support your stance?

"God has told me in the bible that he created the world"

Great, that's what it says in my bible too, evolution does not contradict this.

"i know that there is some evolution"

why just "some"? why not the rest of it? how do you know where to draw the line? Its the same evidence that supports all of it, why are you applying that evidence only to select portions?

"which would be an explosion and all these particles came together and started this place"

I think this is a reference to the big bang. That's astronomy and cosmology. We're talking about evolution here which is biology. I don't know why people get so wrapped up in this but evolution has exactly nothing to do with explosions. (we talked about this before if you go back and read the posts)

"i will laugh my head off at the stupidity of you F-ing "Smart A##es" while im sitting in heaven and watching your A## fry in H#$L"

ahhh, profanity, being prideful, and assuming the authority to judge your fellow Christians. are these the teachings of Christ?

rabbitpolice-

So first off, Science need not square itself with the bible in order to be valid. Science and religion are two different realms, science deals with questions that can be tested, relation deals with questions that cannot be.

Secondly, as for how I am both a Christian and subscribe to the scientific method, I addressed it earlier. Direct quote from earlier post:

""I take it you think there is some truth to the Bible here?"

yes, the bible is full of ethical, moral, and spiritual truth. (this is strictly my opinion and unlike my scientific positions, I cannot support it with logic or evidence) Though in this case, even that isn't necessary because we have historical accounts independent of the bible for when Jesus lived.

"So, now this is different question here. You are essentially asking "Is the bible an infallible source of scientific truth?"

The Bible makes a lot of claims about the natural world that can be falsified by experiment (i.e. pi = 3, the moon emits light, the earth has edges and corners, the earth is supported by pillars, the earth is only 6000 yrs old, etc...) by definition, these claims are scientific, not ethical, moral, or spiritual.

All of the examples I listed above have been definitively falsified by experiments. I therefore conclude that while the bible is the ultimate source of truth on ethical, moral, and spiritual issues, it is not an infallible source of scientific information.

This makes perfect sense to me personally. (again, strictly an opinion here) I believe its in the book of Mark when one of the disciples asks Jesus something like "when we meet new people why are you always speaking to them in parables?" Jesus responds by saying the truth of the universe is very complicated, and that the average joe wouldn't understand it all. So, to get around this, he uses metaphors like the parables so that he can get his message across without having to bring everyone up to speed on the detailed workings of the universe.

I take that passage, and then it is very easy for me to conclude that all the scientifically falsifiable parts of the bible were just meant to be metaphors to make the story simple enough for anyone to understand it.

So, in conclusion, the Bible is great and all, but you can't use it as a science text book."

-keep in mind, that's an opinion it can't be tested or falsified. So there's not much point in trying to get me to believe everything in the bible is literal. But you wanted my opinion and there it is (for the second time)

as for transitional fossils, are you seriously arguing that every single fossil on that 60-fossil list is a hoax? Pick any fossil on that list and I'll provide you with the full formal literary citation.

rabbitpolice-

There is a difference between saying something is a lie and saying it is a simplified parable. See Matthew 13:10-13 for clarification.

Saying that all transitional fossils are hoaxes is a rather bold claim. You are essentially calling all of the worlds biologists, many of the Christians, liars and frauds.

Also, all of the big creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research say that these fossils are real. So, your calling your fellow evolution deniers liars too.

Care to provide some extraordinary evidence for those extraordinary claims you are claiming to be an expert on?

oh boy, that's a lot of claims for one post, here we go:

"For crying out loud, it is not personal...there is just a lot of blowing your own horn here- so I thought you could use a poke, let some of the air out."

You actually expect everyone to believe that calling me a proselytizing cultist was a joke in good faith and not a personal attack / ad hominem argument? you'd make a good liberal politician if you've got the gall to claim that.

"Science is, by definition, just facts, objective, not subjective. Human reasoning and logic, even in the best of efforts, is certainly tainted with a degree of subjectivity."

This point of view is called post modernism, the hippies invented it. Science offers explanations for natural phenomena that can then be falsified by experiment. This grounds it to reality in a way that other human endeavors (like creationism) are not. It is impossible to falsify creationism because any evidence can be explained away as "God made it that way." You can therefore see why creationism is not science.

"how is it, friend, that they are so proved to be transitional?"

ahhh, proof, bear with me here, this is about to get technical. You need to get away from the notion that we as mortal human beings can "prove" anything to the level of absolute truth. I am not saying that there is no ultimate truth (dear God, I'm no postmodernist!) I am just saying that we humans can only have a finite set of knowledge, so it is in principle impossible for us to completely rule out the infinite number of ways a statement could be false. The best we can ever hope to say is "The statement is consistent with all current observations, and as of this time we have been unable to falsify it.

For example, I have a red coffee mug here on my desk. Lets say you were here with me and I wanted to "prove" to you that the coffee mug is red. You can look at it and perceive it as red, but since we are mere mortals we cannot rule out the infinite number of ways in which our perception could be deceiving us.

For example, the mug could actually be blue, but a divine being is making the two of perceive it as red because he abhors logical thought experiments such as these. Now, it sounds ridiculous, and its almost certianly false, but since you and I are mere mortals with finite knowledge we cannot rule it out definitively and therefore we cannot "prove" the color of the coffee mug to the level of absolute truth.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that there is no absolute, truthful answer to the question of the mug's color, I am saying that as mere mortals the best you and I can ever hope to say is: "The statement that the mug is red is consistent with all of our observations and as of this time, we have been unable to falsify it."

So, now you can see this all works. We can't PROVE that tiktaalik was the decent of ancient fish and the ancestor of ancient amphibians. Just like we can't PROVE the mug is red. It's not because we're not doing the right experiments or because we don't have enough evidence its an inherent limitation in being a mortal.

Tiktaalik is actually a great example. Evolution predicted that in rocks of a certain age we would find an animal with some traits of ancient fish and some traits of ancient amphibians. It hypothesizes that this animal was the transition between the two groups. So groups of paleontologists went looking for such a fossil in the rock that evolution predicted it would be in, and they found it. It confirmed a prediction that evolution made, which is a big deal. (keep in mind this is a PRE-diction, describing something before it is found, not a POST-diction, explaining something away after it has been found, creationism has NEVER done this) So, we can say, the statement that tiktaalik is a transitional fossil is consistent with all current observations, was predicted by theory, and as of this time we have been unable to falsify it. As mortal beings, that's as close as we can get to PROOF.

ranger2-
"What PROOF is there that they are not an example of an instict species? "

I think you mean Extinct species? everyone agrees these are extinct species, I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

"there is no way to prove that we are truly evolving on a consistent time table. "

again with the proof thing? (read above) What do you mean "consistent time table"? that these changes happen at a constant rate? in fact we know that is NOT true.

"it is a tough case to PROVE that we are in fact part of a macro evolutionary process."

See above post about being able to "PROVE" anything. We can say however that the fact that living organisms have evolved is consistent with all observations, is predicted by theory, and as of this time we have been unable to falsify it. As mortals that's the best we can do.

Keep in mind you can't say that about creationism because creationism can't be falsified, so its a meaningless statement.

"The micro evolutionary process that is evident in genetics is compelling evidence of the POSSIBILITY of macro evolution"

first off, its important to realize that that the terms micro- and macro- evolution are not used by scientists at all. They are entirely the creation of evolution deniers. It is a distinction without a difference, the only difference between the two is the length of time you let the clock run. What evolution deniers call "macro-evolution" is simply "micro-evolution" allowed to run its course over millions of years.

"Plants and animals do survive on gentic principles of fit vs. weak organisms- the poor genes die out and the strong prevail- and do indeed adapt to their environment"

There you go! you just agreed to evolution. Take that process, let it unfold over millions of years, and that's evolution!

"alligators are still hatching alligators, robins are still hatching robins,"

This is a straw man, no one thinks alligators hatch non-alligators. Alligators hatch copies of themselves with slight genetic variations. Over millions of years these variations add up and you end up with something that would not have been able to mate with that original alligator, then you have a new species. Its a slow, gradual process and there is no clear demarcation line.

"and people, as organisms, have not changed since we have kept track"

This is simply not true. The oldest human DNA we have is significantly different that modern human DNA. Different enough that anthropologists can use these differences to trace how our ancestors spread out across the continents.

This is how we started with a single population and ended up with all these different races. We all agree that at some point in history, there was only a single population of humans(you can even call them Adam and Eve if you want). How can you go from that single population to all the worlds races today and then claim that humans haven't changed over time?

"How else can you explain the oil reserves etc."

Most of the world's fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc..) were laid down during the carboniferous period (from about 360 million to 300 million years ago). During this time sea levels were high, temps were very warm, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were very high. This led to a huge amount of plant growth and most of the planet was covered with swamp like areas. These plants decomposed, were buried, and were turned into fossil fuels by geological and chemical processes. We can see this happening on a much smaller scale today in places like the peat bogs in Scotland.

"If an event of that nature did indeed happen, there is an infinite amount of evidence that would be lost- be it in favor of Creation or evolution"

again, simply not true. If you started with any amount of information, then lost an infinite amount of information you would be left with zero information. This is the very definition of "infinite." Obviously the amount of information left behind from historical events is non-zero, therefore your statement is false.

"It is possible to have lost an indeterminable number of life forms- transtional species canditates perhaps?"

Agreed, we cannot determine the amount of species that didn't fossilize. However, this doesn't mean we can learn things from the species that DID fossilize. Plus, you don't need to use this excuse for transitional fossils, we have plenty of them.

"...This muddies the waters enough that there is no PROOF for either argument"

I think I said this before, but the fact that we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. Scientists know they don't know everything, otherwise they would go get a new job.

Also, this should be clear by now, but I'll say it again. Mortal beings cannot PROVE anything. We can make statements that are consistent with the observations and can be falsified, then we try to falsify them. If after many many falsification attempts the claim is still standing then we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the claim describes the natural world. Evolution fits this bill, creationism does not, it can't be falsified.

"which brings it out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith"

No it doesn't, not even one little bit. We are dealing with claims here that can be subjected to testing and falsification. That's Science!! Faith deals with things that cannot be tested or falsified like the existence and nature of God, morals, spirituality, etc... This is kind of a big deal, they are two very different things, both very useful, and they don't overlap.

"but why not seriously consider it [the bible] at leastn as a source?"

The bible is THE source of information on theological, moral, and spiritual matters. But you simply cannot allow it for a source of scientific information. It makes some claims that are testable and can be easily shown to be false (i.e. pi=3). What happens if you pin you faith to those testable claims and then they are shown to be false? you either have to deny reality, or drop your faith. Both options are unacceptable and this is why you CAN'T adopt the bible as a scientific source.

"Anyhow, there are a lot more questions than answers... which leads to doubt... which leads to faith."

This is not how science works, when you don't know something you say you don't know it. You don't just get to fill in the gaps with whatever you want. If there is a theory which is consistent with all evidence and has yet to be falsified then you can use that theory to predict what future evidence will show. This is VERY different from just filling in the gaps with how you want things to be.

The difference here is a key one, you don't get to fill in the gaps with whatever you feel like. You have to come up with a theory, make sure it fits all the observations and attempt to falsify it many many times. Then and only then can you use that theory to predict what will fill that gap.

Also, notice how this is a prediction, it is ALWAYS subject to change if new evidence about that gap is discovered. Evolution fits all of these descriptions, creationism fits none of them, that's why one is science and the other is not.

whew! now that was a lot of typing.

I guess that what happens when you throw out 50 claims in a single post, it takes a while to discuss all of them.

minor typo correction from radiometric dating post:

When a nucleus spits out two protons and two neutrons its called an alpha particle. (It could also be accurately described as a helium nucleus) A beta particle is another name for a positron.

ranger2-

"there is no way to prove that we are truly evolving on a consistent time table. "
...
"consistent time table= a reasonable observation that this is indeed ocurring, realizing that I still do not hold a lot of stock in the interpretation of the fossil record."

if by "we" you mean humans, then I think my lactose intolerance example is a "consistent time table" as you have defined it. Its an example of natural selection acting on genetic mutations to alter gene frequencies within a population, and that my friends is the definition of evolution.

if by "we" you mean life, then I have lots more examples:

antibiotic resistant bacteria:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-drug-resistant-mrsa...

pesticide resistant insects:

http://www.grapes.msu.edu/pesticideResist.htm

Lizards grow longer legs to shake off invasive fire ants:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm

Bacteria who could only eat glucose and not citrate developed 3 separate mutations that gave them the ability to eat citrate after being exposed to a low-glucose, high-citrate environment for 20 yrs:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutio...

"I am holding stock that there is a limit to the possible purvue of genetic adaptation"

This is interesting, on what do you base this assertion? Science certianly doesn't say that, all of our genes can mutate. There are mutations happening in your cells right now. If you have kids they contain mutations from both you and your wife.

What exactly are you claiming limits these mutations?, biologists know of nothing that does this, perhaps you have a Nobel prize coming.

Or is this perhaps a case of you imposing a set preconceptions on the science in order to draw a conclusion that is comforting? If this is not the case, I will gladly apologize for making such an assertion as long as you can describe to me the natural mechanism that places a limit on the extent of genetic mutation.

rabbitpolice-

Where's your evidence for that vast conspiracy you were talking about?

"well you don't see any half fish half man walking around do you?"

Thank you for clearly demonstrating to us that you have no idea what evolution is yet you claiming to be authoritative on the subject.

"I would say it kinda stops before that happens."

Now there's a testable scientific hypothesis for ya!

evolution explains the diversity of life, not how it started. It has exactly zero to do cosmology or astrophysics (which would explain how the earth got here) it's biology. I have stated this several times and never once flip flopped.

But you still haven't answered the question, so I'll ask again:

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

rabbitpolice-

I am highly skeptical that your history professor said that evolution explains where the planet came from. If he did, he is a moron. Not that this is entirely improbable, as an examination of our current chief executive will surely indicate that advanced degrees do shield one from succumbing to stupidity.

You did say it was a history professor, and after all, they do call it LIBERAL arts for a reason. *wink*

but you still haven't even addressed the question, so I'll ask again:

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

Of course there is another possibility, its possible you don't understand the theory at all, that you never even tried to understand it. That you merely judged ahead of time that evolution could not be valid for ideological reasons and you therefore never burdened yourself with actually LEARNING what the whole thing was all about.

I think this is firmly supported by your musings about "fish men", "explosions", "blobs", vast conspiracies, etc... I also recognize this is a rather bold assertion, but I will happily apologize for it if you would only use your vast knowledge of the scientific theory of evolution to explain to us why the theory necessitates the existence of "fish men"

rabbitpolice,

ahhh, yet more ad hominems instead of supporting your arguments.

We're still waiting on the evidence for that vast conspiracy theory of yours?

And on your explanation of why evolution NECESSITATES the existence of a "fish man"?

you can't make outlandish claims like this unless you are able to support them with a rational argument.

rabbitpolice,

no one ever said you "have to explain yourself to me". Its just that when grown-ups are talking and one them makes an outlandish claim, if he wants the other grown ups to take him seriously he needs to rationally justify his claim.

you haven't even mentioned your biologist-creationist conspiracy, and all you've said about the fish man is that evolution allows some species to turn into other. This is of course true, but its not what you originally asserted. You asserted that if evolution were valid then there MUST be a "half man half fish". You haven't even tried to justify that claim, so I'll ask again:

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

of course there is another option, you could always admit that you made up the conspiracy theory as a lie out of whole cloth, and that you don't understand the scientific theory of evolution, so you can't answer the above question.

rabbitpolice-

"my dad would say you are cruising for a bruising"

yet again, rabbitpolice shows us his idea of how we Christians should behave. This time by threatening physical violence.

"My claims are no more outlandish than you believing we came from an ape or a blob of pond scum."

Let's leave aside the fact that you are misrepresenting my position and grant you this point for the sake of conversation. Even if we both have equally outlandish claims, I have rationally argued and provided evidence for my positions in the pages of writing above. Where is your rational explanation and evidence for your conspiracy theory and your "fish man" statement?

"for evolution to be true you would have to be able to find animals that are half one and half another"

First of all, lets be clear that this was not the position you took with your "fish man" statement. In a beautiful case of irony you are doing the flip-flopping that you accused me of. This statement could be summarized as "Evolution necessitates the existence of transitional forms". This is a true statement but it is not what you originally said.

You said: "Evolution necessitates the existence of a half fish half man." Not only does that statement not make sense, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding in the subject which you are claiming to be authoritative on. We are still waiting for you to support this argument.

"there are none"

This is, of course, factually incorrect.

half land mammal half whale called Kutchicetus:

http://web.me.com/dooleyclan/Site_2/Blog/Entries/2008/10/18_SVP,_Day_4_f...

half fish half amphibian called tiktaalik:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

half Dinosaur half bird called Anchiornis:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/dinosaur/

and here's 6 more:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-bi...

"I told you word for word what he said and you said you highly doubted he said anything of the kind"

Perhaps you haven't been around academia long enough yet to realize this, but advanced degrees don't even shield people from idiocy in their own field of expertise, let alone in fields completely unrelated to their discipline. (like say how biology is completely unrelated to history)

If that man actually said that evolution explains where the planet earth came from then he is completely ignorant of biology, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. And I, along with any science professor at your school, would gladly inform him of this.

Its also quite telling that your primary source for information on biology is a history teacher...

"You just know that God couldn't have done it."

Blatantly not true, I believe God created everything we can see in the universe. I just claim that the idea that it was all created in 6 24-hour days 6000 years ago has been falsified by observation and experiment. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though, I appreciate it.

oh yeah, I almost forgot:

We're still waiting on the evidence for that conspiracy theory of yours, and...

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

Not a single textbook ever in the history of textbooks has said that the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "fish man".

Transitional forms between early primates and early hominids yes, "fish men" no.

Either cite the text book that says evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man" or admit you made the whole thing up.

rabbitpolice-

first, I'm not twisting the meaning of your words at all. you are trying to squirm out of presenting a rational argument for your claims and I am trying to make you support the outlandish claims you are making.

"... to be fish men (although evolutionists teach about them)"

This is a blatant lie. You are making things up out of whole cloth again. Cite a single source of a biologist talking about fish men or apologize for lying.

"I said there should be half man half animal (take you pic of what kind) all over the place even today if evolution is still taking place."

you are lying AGAIN.

Rabbitpolice quote from 1 day 4 hrs ago:
"well you don't see any half fish half man walking around do you? "

Rabbitpolice quote from 1 day 2 hrs ago:
"Where is the half fish guy?"

you did not say "half man half animal", you said "half man half fish", you're lying again and you won't admit it.

and you still haven't even addressed your vast conspiracy theory?!

We're still waiting on the evidence for that conspiracy theory of yours, and...

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

rabbitpolice-

a couple things about that enormous quote from Morris:

1)I'd like everyone to realize that rabbitpolice can't support the arguments he's been making about fish men and vast conspiracies so he's trying to change the subject of the conversation by introducing this quote which is completely unrelated to either claim.

2)That quote was either written a very long time ago, or the author had a very loose grasp on the basic concepts of modern biology, here are some of the red flags:

Red Flag #1
He talks about evolution moving "upward" and having "vertical changes", suggesting that there is some magical force driving towards "greater complexity" and "higher order". This is a BIG red flag for someone not knowing what they're talking about. That's not even evolution he's talking about that's Lamarckism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

evolution has no magical force constantly driving "upwards", the concept of what "upwards" is doesn't even exist within evolutionary biology. Evolution simply favors mutations which make the organism better suited to its environment, it doesn't care whether that mutation results in more, less, or the same amount of complexity. This has been one of the core principles of evolution since day one and Mr. Morris clearly does not understand it.

Red Flag #2
He goes on and on about how unlikely it is that any given mutation will be beneficial as if it is a weakness of evolution.

Biologists know that most mutations are either worthless or harmful, but this is far from saying that beneficial ones do not occur.

He himself admits that mutations occur at a rate of one in ten thousand per gene per population. Humans have about 3 billion genes (the way he is using the term), so that means by his own measure we should expect 300,000 mutations per generation. With that many mutations, very few of them need to be beneficial in order for evolution to occur. Its pretty easy to see how those relatively few beneficial mutations could add up to significant changes over thousands of generations. He doesn't even realize he's making an argument that supports evolution.

rabbitpolice-

"It's bacteria, how prey tell does this prove anything."

It perfectly refutes Mr. Morris' core argument. He claimed mutations have never been shown to produce beneficial changes, this is a highly documented example of mutations producing a beneficial change. It clearly shows he's wrong.

If you are somehow implying that the rules of mutation and natural selection work differently for small organisms than for large ones, then please make that argument. If that is the case then you know something the scientific community doesn't and you've got a Nobel prize coming.

"Everyone knows that bacteria can change, it can not however become another bacteria or form of bacteria."

You're wrong again, that's exactly what they did in this experiment. One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli is that they cannot metabolize citrate. In this experiment these bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, that makes them a new "form of bacteria".

"By the way shouldn't these " changes" have taken much much longer like millions of years?"

No, they should not have. You're thinking of large organisms whose lifespans last decades. It did indeed take millions of generations to produce this evolution, but since bacteria have such a fast life cycle, those millions of generations only took 20 years.

By the way, nice touch there putting "changes" into quotes, you're calling into question whether anything actually changed without having to provide any of that pesky evidence or rational explanation.

"Nobody was around to prove any of the outlandish claims of how life started or how the world was created. Also, you can not use the present to tell with 100% accuracy what happened a supposed million years ago."

gee, where do I start with that-

1)how would having an eyewitness "prove" anything? how would you know they weren't lying or being deceived?
2)evolution has nothing to do with how the planet formed
3)evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life
4)just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything
5)science doesn't claim absolute truth, I discussed that at length earlier.
6)so far, for the entirety of human civilization, how the natural world works today has been an extremely good indicator of how it worked yesterday.

rabbitpolice-

"How the world formed and where life came from are the foundation of evolution mcloud. Hello, the big bang etc. "

I think you're confusing the words "evolution" and "science"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. The branches of science that deal with the formation of the planet are called cosmology and astrophysics.

"Life started as pond scum and some how man came out of scum. If you deny this you sir know nothing of evolution "

cite me a single source that says that a man emerged from "scum" or that evolution has anything to do with cosmology or admit that you are lying, once again.

or of course, you could do like you have been doing this whole time, and ignore the fact that I completely refuted your argument and jump to an entirely new claim.

"Again what makes you the authority on biology? What makes you think you know more about it than a phd? You are not the authority."

I literally already addressed this exact issue three posts ago, so I'll just copy-paste

"I never said I was, If you can show me one quote where I said "I'm right because I'm the high water mark of biology" then I will forfeit the whole conversation and leave.

The fact is that I support my claims, not by claiming authority, but by supporting my claims with rational arguments and evidence. Something you have yet to do for either your conspiracy theory or your fish man."

"The bacteria still does not prove that man evolved. "

I never said the bacteria proved man evolved, I said it refutes Morris' core claims that beneficial mutations have never been observed. are you even reading the posts?

almost forgot again:

We're still waiting on the evidence for that conspiracy theory of yours, and...

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

rabbitpolice-

"begging like a spoiled child again. You still say every one is wrong but you. You will not change"

this is a logical fallacy called the argument ad hominem. It is when people cannot support their argument so they make childish attempts to discredit their opponent.

"You are prideful and concieted to thing [think?] you know more than a phd who taught applied sciences."

I never, not once anywhere, said "I am right because I am smarter", I said "I am right, here are the reasons why and here is the evidence". Again, you'll realize this some day, but advanced degrees do not shield people for idiocy, just look at our current president, are you being prideful and conceited for disagreeing with him?

This is another logical fallacy called the argument form authority. You are essentially claiming "I am right because authority figure X says so", this assumes that authority figure X is infallible, and since no mortal beings are infallible it is easy to see why this is a fallacy.

But fine, you want to play dueling experts? I can play that game too:

here's the list called dissent from darwin:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=dow...

They went around and collected the names of all the creationist scientists they could. They even had pretty loose standards, you don't need to be a phd to get on the list, your degree doesn't even need to be in a relevant field, you just have to work in the broad field of "science". Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, they only got 761 names.

here's a list called project Steve:

http://ncselegacy.org/taking-action/list-steves

That's a list of people who support evolution. but they were MUCH MUCH more strict in who they would accept. They only accept people named "Steve", on average less than 1% of the population. They must have a Phd (unlike the dissent list) and they must work in a field that is relevant to evolution (unlike the dissent list). So with all those restrictions they should have fewer names right? Wrong!, they have 1118 names, that's almost 50% more! ouch!

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying I'm right because these people agree with me. That would be the argument from authority, the logical fallacy that you used. I'm saying I'm right for all the reasons I give in the dozens of posts above, not because of the list. However, I am showing you that you really do not want to invoke authority figures here because the numbers are on my side.

We're still waiting on the evidence for that conspiracy theory of yours, and...

With your vast understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, can you please explain to me, in your own words, why your understanding of the scientific theory of evolution necessitates the existence of a "half fish half man"?

another really cool example:

There is a certain sub-group of viruses called retroviruses. Some of the better known retroviruses are the ones that cause AIDS and certain types of leukemia but not all of them are that deadly.

These viruses work in a rather nasty way. When they attack one of your cells, they inject their own DNA into the nucleus of your cell. This DNA gets inserted into a random location on one of your chromosomes and that basically forces the cell to make thousands of copies of its attacker (the retrovirus).

Normally that happens to random cells throughout your body, so that chromosome, with retrovirus making instructions doesn't get passed on to your kids.

However, sometimes one of these retroviruses attacks a sperm or an egg cell and the chunk of retro-viral DNA is passed on to your kids. Obviously, if the retrovirus DNA is still active, this is very bad news for the baby, but our bodies have DNA repair systems that go around looking for these bad chunks of DNA and deactivating them.

Because of this, a fair percentage of the retro-viral DNA is deactivated soon enough that the baby is actually born without the disease. When this happens, that chunk of retrovirus DNA becomes a permanent part of the baby's chromosomes and will get passed on, in its deactivated form, to all the future offspring.

I've been using humans as an example, but this process works the same way in all animals.

So, this gives us another opportunity to test evolution vs creationism. If creationism is correct then these deactivated chunks of retrovirus DNA should be randomly placed throughout all the animals because none of them share a common ancestor.

If Evolution is correct, these chunks of deactivated retrovirus DNA should follow a clear pattern. For example, if a retrovirus infected the ancestor of all modern mammals then we should expect to see that virus' DNA at the same place, on the same chromosome, in all modern mammals. This would be because that ancient mammal passed it on to all of his decedents, from which all modern mammals are descended.

However, if we find a retrovirus that infected the ancestor of all modern primates, then we should expect to see that virus' DNA in the same place on the same chromosome of all modern primates, but NOT in the chromosomes of animals that did not descend from that primate, like cows, sheep, squirrels, etc...

When you apply this to all the sub-groups of animals this gives you a bunch of testable hypotheses that evolution predicts will happen but would be astronomically unlikely if these animals were not descended from a common ancestor.

Geneticists have been hard at work sequencing genomes and as a side effect of that research we can test our hypotheses. So far Geneticists have found thousands of chucks of retrovirus DNA that follow this beautiful pattern predicted by evolution and not a single one that follows the random pattern predicted by creationism.

Born again Christian and head of the human genome project, Francis Collins summed it up this way, by referring to identical chunks of retrovirus DNA in the exact same place on both human and mouse chromosomes:

"Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these [chunks of retrovirus DNA] in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable."

(Collins, The Language of God, pp. 135-137)

ranger2-

Thank you VERY MUCH for rejoining the conversation.

I had to do some more research after reading your wife's input. Tell her I said thank you, I learned a lot from the reading she sparked.

This gets a little detailed so bear with me.

She was right and I was wrong, the body's DNA repair system, as fascinating as it is, would not deactivate chunks of retro-viral DNA, It would remove them.

However, this does not invalidate all that beautiful evidence for evolution because those chunks of retrovirus DNA in our chromosomes have not been inactivated, they have been truncated. (again, my error, not the scientists)

To explain what "truncated" means, we have to get into how genes code for proteins. Every gene has a "start codon", then all the codons that code for the various amino acids in the protein, then an "end codon". The start and end codons work like headers and footers on a text file so that as the cell is reading along the DNA strand it knows where to start and where to end any given protein.

What has happened in the case of these chunks of retrovirus DNA in our chromosomes is that when the virus injected its DNA into our genome, there was a copying error and start codon got chopped off (aka truncated).

So, this way as the cell is reading along the DNA strand, when it comes to the section of retro-viral DNA, it never sees a start codon, so it never starts making the proteins for the virus. It essentially just skips over that part of our genome. As I'm sure your wife can tell you, this is quite common because only about 1.5% of our DNA actually codes for proteins, the rest is either commands like the start and end codons or is just skipped over.

ranger2-

"I know, predictions about where, and what age rock and falsifiable, bla bla bla."

If you are going to argue against these points don't you have to actually argue against them instead of just saying "bla bla bla"? Have I ever dismissed a creationist argument by saying "bla bla bla"?

"I do not think that there is enough evidence present for the claims made [about transitional fossils]"

Isn't this moving the goal posts? This is what typically happens in these conversations:
Creationist:
"show me the transitional fossils!"
Scientist:
"how would you define transitional fossil?"
creationist:
"a fossil of an animal with some traits of one group and some traits of another that was found in rock dating to the time when those two groups were supposed to be splitting"
Scientist:
"Ok, here are half a dozen examples of fossils of animals with some traits of one group and some traits of another that were found in rock dating to the time when the two groups were supposed to be splitting"
creationist:
"No! that doesn't count!"
scientist:
"then what does?"

That's called moving the goal posts, what ever evidence is presented, the threshold for acceptance is moved back just beyond the range of the current evidence.

So, I ask you, if this is not what you are doing, then what evidence would you require in order to establish that a fossil is transitional?

Keep in mind, that if you say "no possible evidence could ever convince me", that's fine from a theological standpoint. However, science is always dependent on the evidence, so you are firmly removing yourself from the realm of science and admitting that your claims should not be taught in the science classroom.

I can easily list what evidence will convince me that tiktaalik is NOT a transition fossil. Show me one fossil of any type of land vertebrate (reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, you name it) fossilized in rock older than tiktaalik. That's all it would take, one good fossil and I'd be convinced.

"Have you compared the examples of the hominid skulls to various primate skelletons?"

The hominid skulls are part of primate skeletons, and they've compared to other primate skeletons in so many different ways it would make your head spin.

"We are not even accounting for the probability of an unknown number of recently (within the last 4,000 years) extinct species for comparison."

The hominid fossils ARE FROM extinct primate species, though none of them are anywhere near as young as 4000 yrs, what are you getting at here?

"Also, most of the hominid fossils were discovered in locations that have current non-human primate populations."

Again, this makes sense given that the hominid fossils ARE FROM non-human primates. (as long as we're defining humans as the species homo sapiens, which I believe is how most people use it)

"Tiktaalik is just as likely a crocodile of some variety as it is a fish-pod. It just depends on the 'bent' of the interpreter."

first off, really? a "crocodile" with fins and gills that is entirely unrelated to fish? who is bending over backwards to support their preconceived notions here?

But I digress, back to the topic at hand.

I firmly disagree. Tiktaalik was found in 375 million year old rock, the oldest crocodilians (the family of animals crocodiles are from) are found in rocks only 84 million years ago. That's 281 million years where just by chance, none of these hypothetical crocodiles of yours happened to fossilize.

To give you some context, dinosaurs were only around for 165 million years and we have THOUSANDS of dinosaur fossils. How could your hypothetical crocodiles be around for 70% longer than dinosaurs and never fossilize once?

"Why would the old serpant not want to muddy the water by influencing the interpretation of God's handiwork?"

That's an interesting theological hypothesis you have there. Are you essentially saying that any scientific evidence that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible was placed there by Satan to lead us astray?

But we need to be clear, this is in no way shape or form a scientific hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable.

I might be willing to get into a theological discussion on this topic, but we are clear that claiming this completely removes you from the realm of science, so you are admitting that your claims have no place in the science classroom.

carney-

its funny, I don't remember anyone forcing you to read this thread, the title clearly states what we're discussing, if you don't want to discuss it then don't click on the thread.

Its pretty simple really.

ranger2-

"I am not after moving the goal post. [with regards to transitional fossils]"

Then could you answer the original question? what evidence would you require to establish that a fossil is transitional? Remember, if your answer is "no possible evidence would suffice" then you're doing theology, not science and your claims have no place in the science class room.

"in spite of your surety that they are not fallable"

Short note here; I never claimed that radiometric dating was infallible, nothing is. You are drawing a false dichotomy though if you are claiming that "not infallible" = "not usable".

For example clocks are not infallible, their batteries go dead and they stop, you've certainly seen this in your life. But you still trust clocks don't you? why is this? because 99.9% of them you have even seen agree with each other. Plus, you understand why that .01% that don't agree are broken (dead batteries). This is the exact same case with radiometric dating.

"[the biblical flood] would negate the entire fossil record as evidence for evolution."

I've already spelled out a couple reasons why this cannot possibly be the case (radiometric dating, distribution of fossils, etc...). But even if you want to ignore those perfectly valid arguments and throw the fossil record out the window, what about all the other evidence? What about the Lenski experiment? what about the chunks of retroviral DNA? (if you'd like, I could give more examples that have nothing to do with fossils as well)

"the cahracteristics do not trend with the dates of origin enough for me to conclude that it was a process from monkey to man."

What are you talking about here?, the fossils go in a pretty clean sequence from the most ape like being the oldest, to the most human like being the newest. Also, I ask again, if your opinion is that all those early hominid fossils are not transitional, then what evidence would you require to convince you that they are transitional? If your answer is "there is no possible evidence" then your claims don't belong in the science classroom.

ranger2-

"You are not willing to mix science and spirituality (religion, if you prefer). I am not willing to seperate them entirely."

You yourself admit that some claims can be falsified by experiment and observation while others cannot be. Am I really the one doing the separating or do they naturally separate themselves?

"I am not the type to bury my head in the sand, I am interested in as genuine an objective truth as exists."

If only there were some system by which objective truths about the natural world could be systematically evaluated... some kind of system where people would subject various claims to experiments and observations and then logically draw conclusions about their validity... perhaps we could call it "science"? ;-)

Assessing the validity of metaphysical, unfalsifiable theological claims is a truly challenging intellectual endeavor. There's no way to do any testing, and logic is often of little value when the premises of an argument cannot be evaluated.

Luckily, when we are dealing with the natural world we don't have to fall into this quagmire. We can subject our claims to falsification and make statements about their validity with a high degree of certainty. It's a beautiful thing, why else would we have these brains?

"I do however believe that there are things that we will not be able to explain"

I'll grant you the premise that this is probably true. However, what purpose does this statement serve in reality?

How do you know ahead of time which "things" are beyond our ability to understand? Would any length of time spent searching for an answer suffice as "proof" it was beyond our grasp? how would you ever know that a breakthrough wasn't right around the corner? How do we decide what topics to investigate and what topics must be left to divinity? 500 years ago lightning would have been in the latter category. 100 years ago radioactivity and nuclear power were in that category. 20 years ago AIDS was in that category, Heck, before quantum mechanics, light itself was in that category, before Newton gravity was in it too.

My point is that whether or not something is beyond our ability to explain is completely irrelevant. There is no way for us to know ahead of time which phenomena fall into that category so we have to try to explain all of them. The only thing that making a statement like that accomplishes is to hamper investigations into things that we CAN eventually explain.

And least you think I am wondering too far into the abstract, remember, it is that process of searching for explanations, the one you are hampering with your statement; that drives our economy, defends our country, and saves the lives of our sick loved ones. Taking that position as a society would literally take its toll in human lives.

ranger2-

"a lot of the answers come down to accepting evidence, but who gets to decide what evidence is valid? It still often comes down to an opinion, even in scientific study."

I hate to break it to you friend, but that's postmodernism right there. That is exactly what they say about science. And we all know that if the hippies think it, it must be wrong. ;-)

Why is it wrong? because accepting evidence in science DOES NOT come down to opinion. Not even a little bit.

If I say "metal X melts at 3000 degrees" you don't have to form an opinion on whether or not to believe me. You can replicate my experiment and see if you can reproduce my findings. You don't even have to form an opinion about whether or not you can trust your instruments. You can swap them out and try a different set of instruments, or you test them against known samples. There is exactly zero subjective opinion needed.

If you think someone's evidence is bogus then all you have to do is scientifically show WHY their evidence is bogus and the whole world will join you in laughing at the claimant. Zero Opinion Needed.

This kind of stuff happens all the time. Remember the Ponds and Fleishman cold fusion debacle? Or the Korean doctor doing bogus stem cell research a few years ago? There was zero opinion involved in either of those cases, their fellow scientists tried to reproduce their results and showed it was all fake.

But anyways, lets get our heads out of the philosophical clouds.

I take it you have conceded that creationism is unfalsifiable because you have not answered any of my "what evidence would it take" questions?

If you agree, then we are actually on the same page. We both believe that creationism is unfalsifiable and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

Bella,

Sorry to do this to you, but I have to be fair in dishing out the science.

The notion that "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" has been known to be bunk since the early 1900's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_recapitulates_phylogeny

One of the few valid critiques that evolution deniers have is that this idea was ubiquitous in text books until the 1980's, and continues to be printed in in new text books even today, even though it has been known to be false for roughly a century now.

The whole idea was based on a set of embryo drawings made by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. (they are the ones you probably picture in your head when you talk about this) Unfortunately, Haeckel was a rather sloppy scientist and he was so sure of his ideas that he made his drawings without actually bothering to dissect the embryos in question.

When other biologists tried to duplicate his observations, they were unable to. The whole scientific community had completely abandoned the idea within a few decades of Haeckel making the drawings. However the drawings were so pretty that text book companies latched onto them and still haven't completely let go.

Another important note here, notice how science is a self correcting process. Haeckel was wrong, and what proved him wrong? was it anti-science creationists? NO! It was his fellow scientists following what we call the peer review process today. Scientific ideas are shown to be wrong sometimes, but they are NEVER shown to be wrong by the anti-science community, they are always shown to be wrong by other scientists.

So, sorry, but at no stage in its development does a human embryo have gills.

As for your comments on rabbitpolice's education, its quite possible he is old enough to have taken high school biology and still be this ignorant of evolution (regardless of whether or not he agrees with it). First, he could have gone to a private religious school where they don't teach evolution at all. Second, a fair number of southern states just flat out don't include evolution in their science curriculum. Thirdly, a lot of southern states don't even require science teachers to have a science degree, so its possible that he went to a public school, in a state where evolution was in the curriculum, but he had a biology teacher who had a business degree so they had an understanding of evolution on par with his own.

When you start looking at things, poor eduction is really the root cause of most of the worlds problems, but it is especially at the heart of the anti-science attitudes like you have seen on this thread.

well, Bordetella,

that's been a couple full days with no response,

I guess we can chalk this one up as a win for science!

what exactly does tom curise have to do with anything?

carney, could you define "missing link" for us?

I've always thought that people meant transitional fossils when they used that term?

Carney,

I'm dead serious, I'm not being hostile, can you tell me how you would define "missing link"?

If you do that, then I will supply you with an answer.

you see, the reason why I need you to do this first is because the term "missing link" is more of a cultural term than a scientific one. I have learned (partially from this very thread) that the term means different things to different people.

Obviously, I couldn't hope to be successful in giving you an example of a class of animal whose definition I do not understand. So, give me a fair shot by clearly defining this class of animal and then I will do my best to show you an example.

...this of course assumes that you made your last comment in good faith, and not merely as a juvenile rhetorical tactic.

the grass is green, they don't expect genetics to tell us why planets orbit the sun in ellipses. they don't expect the germ theory of disease to tell predict exactly where an artillery shell will fall.

Why then do people expect evolution, a theory explaining the diversification of life on earth to explain the origin of the first cell, much less the creation of the universe itself.

They are entirely separate questions which are addressed by different branches of science.

I recently saw a clip of Bill O'Rielly talking with a guest about evolution and he said something like "yeah, you know, those biologists make some good arguments and all, but at the end of the day, I'm going with the creationists, because those biologists can't even tell us where the universe comes from"

I think this is a fairly accurate description of a lot of people's thoughts on the topic.

But seriously, think of how absurd that is, that argument is the logical equivalent of saying "yeah, that painter does a great job at painting, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to hire him because he won't also re-wire my house.

Think about it rationally people! its absolutely absurd, yet most of the general public just drinks it right up!

conservation student,

Of course I agree with you on creationism not being science and therefore having no place in the science classroom. I think I've said that on this very thread.

as for your question:
"So would you say its safe to say that science says nothing about the origin of life?"

I would certainly not say that. I'd say that science potentially has a lot to say about the origin of life.. any well formed hypothesis about the origin of life that could be falsified through experiment or observation can be evaluated by science.

Notice the difference between what I just said and saying "evolution explains the origin of life", they are very different things and the latter is not true.

Its just that no one has yet come up with a good theory on this topic that has stood up to extensive testing and observations. This is not to say that no one ever will, just that they haven't yet. Remember gravity was in that same category before Einstein.